Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' could ban states from regulating AI for a decade
Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' could ban states from regulating AI for a decade
Show Caption
Hide Caption
House passes President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'
The House passed President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' It will now move onto the Senate.
President Donald Trump's massive bill package, dubbed the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' contains a proposal that could significantly waylay a burgeoning movement to regulate artificial intelligence on the state level.
The ban is tucked into a section of the bill that would allocate $500 million over the next 10 years to modernize government systems with the help of AI and automation technologies. The ban would not only prevent new state-led regulations of AI but would also block dozens of states from enforcing preexisting AI regulations and oversight structures.
The 1,000-plus-page legislation pushed forward by Republicans passed in the House by just one vote on May 22, sending it off to the Senate. Though Republicans hope to finalize the tax and policy bill by the end of July in order to avoid a debt default, it's still a ways off from becoming law, as the GOP navigates a slim majority amid party infighting over several key elements of the bill. Though misgivings center on Medicaid, tax cuts and government spending, a few high-profile Republican lawmakers have signaled the proposed AI regulation ban is also a point of friction.
Trump's bill: Tax policy bill clears the House. Next up: An opinionated Senate
Regulation of artificial intelligence is often likened to a wild west of sorts, as governments across the country and the globe race to keep up with the rapidly evolving technology. AI itself has proved to be an enticing tool for public and private organizations – so much so that adoption of the tech far outpaces many governments' ability to implement laws and frameworks meant to prevent misuse. As it stands, there is no centralized federal oversight of AI, leaving states to attempt to regulate the technology through an uneven patchwork of legislation.
Under President Joe Biden's administration, the White House introduced a now-defunct blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, taking a cue from the European Union's similarly named document. It directed state agencies to evaluate current uses and potential impacts of AI, evaluate potential AI-fueled risks and encourage state employee training on the subject. In its place is a new Trump-led AI framework, prioritizing accelerating AI innovation. The Trump administration's stance on regulation so far largely aligns with that of companies and much of the tech industry, who argue that regulation would stymie innovation.
Trump and AI: President signs executive order boosting AI in K-12 schools
Many regulations target AI scams, deepfakes and AI-assisted disinformation, with increasing focus on other possible harms from the technology. While there are many opportunities for AI to create positive changes, policy and advocacy organizations like the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy (CITED) warn of the same possibilities for negative impacts, necessitating regulation in some areas.
"Many commentators believe that AI could soon be used by state and non-state actors to develop dangerous weapons, increase surveillance, and magnify existing biases and discrimination in a variety of fields, from lending, to hiring, to policing," CITED says in a January 2024 report.
The letter's signatories include Georgetown Law's Center on Privacy and Technology, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Actors' Equity Association, Innocence Project and the National Union of Healthcare Workers, among others.
Though Republicans largely expressed support for the provision in a House subcommittee hearing Wednesday, May 21, prominent Republican Republican Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee have recently pushed back on the ban.
'We certainly know that in Tennessee, we need those protections,' Blackburn said in a May 21 hearing on a bill to protect Americans from AI impersonations. 'And until we pass something that is federally preemptive, we can't call for a moratorium.'
Hawley also pushed back on the proposed ban in a May 13 interview with Business Insider. 'I would think that, just as a matter of federalism, we'd want states to be able to try out different regimes that they think will work for their state,' Hawley said. 'And I think in general, on AI, I do think we need some sensible oversight that will protect people's liberties.'
The argument against regulation is often one of innovation, with tech industry leaders and companies saying it could limit the technology and make the U.S. less competitive in the field. Others in support of the ban, such as Sean Heather, Senior Vice President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say states are moving too fast in regulating AI.
"We should stop international patchworks and domestic patchworks in AI regulation," Heather said during the May 21 House subcommittee hearing. "We should not be in a rush to regulate. We need to get it right, therefore taking a time out to discuss it at a federal level is important to be able to support a moratorium."
At least 45 states plus Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C., introduced AI bills in the 2024 legislative session, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Of those, over 30 states and territories passed legislation concerning AI, with Utah, Maryland and Florida passing regulatory and AI oversight acts. Across seven states and Puerto Rico, there are 16 AI regulation bills introduced last year still pending legislative approval, and more than a dozen new regulatory proposals introduced in statehouses across the country in 2025.
Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@usatoday.com and on X @KathrynPlmr.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Louisiana House committee passes budget that closes $200 million shortfall without raising taxes
BATON ROUGE — The House Appropriations Committee advanced a $49.4 billion state budget Monday that funds $2,000 teacher stipends for next year, closes a nearly $200 million shortfall and balances the books without raising taxes. To bridge the budget gap, lawmakers pieced together a solution using a mix of cuts, delayed spending and the discovery of unspent or underutilized funds tucked away in various agencies. This included clawing back excess appropriations, redirecting one-time revenues and freezing certain state expenditures. Some of the savings came from blocking state vehicle purchases and combing Medicaid rolls to remove people who have moved out of state. The committee's approach not only avoided tax hikes but also safeguarded critical areas like education and healthcare. The effort won praise from both sides of the aisle, with Republicans applauding the fiscal discipline and Democrats recognizing the protection of key public services and the funding of teacher stipends. At the heart of the plan is House Bill 1, the state's main operating budget authored by Appropriations Chairman Jack McFarland, R-Winnfield. The bill, originally submitted by Gov. Jeff Landry as a standstill plan, was overhauled to address the shortfall and fund the $2,000 stipends for teachers and $1,000 for school support staff, including charter school employees, The stipends that were in jeopardy after Louisiana voters rejected a constitutional amendment in March that would have secured a permanent funding source for the stipends. 'In tough times, families tighten their belts,' McFarland said in a news release. "We made sure the state government did the same — responsibly, and without asking more from taxpayers.' Protecting teacher raises: Louisiana legislative panel funds teacher pay raises in surprise move Income tax plan advances Louisiana House passes bill that could further cut income tax, with constitutional amendment TOPS funding TOPS tweaks trouble cofounder Taylor: 'Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water' The final package included a series of cost-saving measures. Lawmakers blocked $91 million in vehicle and equipment purchases for state agencies, cut $26.3 million in Medicaid spending by removing ineligible recipients and saved $20 million through a statewide hiring freeze ordered by Landry. They also used state reserves to pay down $148 million in retirement debt for the State Police system, generating $25.5 million in interest savings, and eliminated 'high-dosage' tutoring programs, freeing up an additional $30 million. 'We balanced the budget, protected taxpayers, and made government more accountable. And we're just getting started,' said House Speaker Phillip DeVillier, R-Eunice. 'These cuts lay the groundwork for long-term reform and financial stability.' The committee also kept intact Landry's request for $94 million in funding for the new Louisiana GATOR program, an education savings account initiative that allows families to use public funds for private school tuition and other non-public education expenses. The program is a key part of Landry's school choice agenda and is expected to launch in phases. It is controversial among some education advocates and rural lawmakers, who say it could eventually drain money from public schools. McFarland acknowledged the teacher stipends are being funded with one-time dollars and that a long-term solution remains elusive. 'Until then, this is what we had to do, but I don't want to have to do it again,' McFarland said. Democrats praised the bipartisan work needed to achieve this bill. "I want to thank the chairman and administration and everyone who has worked on getting these amendments done, particularly for teacher stipends,' Rep. Denise Marcelle, D-Baton Rouge, said. 'Thank you for looking under tables and around the corners.' Rep. Jason Hughes, D-New Orleans, the vice chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, noted that early childhood education funding remains untouched and pointed to new investments in public safety. Gov. Landry's hiring freeze is expected to save $20 million annually and is seen as a way to preserve healthcare and education spending without deeper cuts. 'The public should know this budget represents no cuts in services,' Hughes said. 'We found surpluses elsewhere. But this is just one step in a very lengthy process.' The budget increases spending by $7 million for domestic violence shelters under the Department of Children and Family Services. The budget also reduces dedications from the State General Fund and officially ends remote work for state employees. If HB1 passes the House as expected, it will move to the Senate Finance Committee for further deliberation. The committee also advanced other key budget bills. House Bill 460 allocates $148.8 million in surplus funds to pay down State Police retirement debt, saving $25.5 million in interest compared to the original plan to spread the money across four systems. House Bill 461 sends 25% of the 2023–2024 surplus to the Budget Stabilization Fund and authorizes emergency spending. House Bill 463 funds ancillary agencies without tapping the State General Fund, while House Bill 647 finances the judiciary. Additional allocations in the budget include $7 million for domestic violence shelters under the Department of Children and Family Services. The budget also reduces dedications from the State General Fund and officially ends remote work for state employees. This article originally appeared on Lafayette Daily Advertiser: Louisiana House Appropriations Committee passes budget, closes shortfall
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Medicaid cuts in Republican bill emerge as an early flash point for the 2026 elections
WASHINGTON — Early battle lines are forming over a centerpiece of the sprawling domestic policy bill that House Republicans narrowly passed, with Medicaid spending cuts emerging as a flash point that could define the 2026 midterm elections. Democrats are fine-tuning their message as they blast the legislation, which now heads to the GOP-led Senate, as a tax cut for the wealthy that would be funded by cutting health care, after Republicans broadly promised they wouldn't cut Medicaid. A recent memo from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee vows to make the GOP's 'tax scam' and Medicaid cuts 'the defining contrast of the 2026 election cycle' in its efforts to win the House majority next year. The DCCC is advising Democratic candidates to criticize the Republican bill as a Trojan horse designed to throw millions off of Medicaid — not address waste — with new red tape, said a separate source with knowledge of the private conversations. And Republicans are trying to frame the fight on their terms. The National Republican Congressional Committee is advising members to tout the bill as 'strengthening Medicaid' by limiting the program to those who need it — 'not fraudsters, able-bodied adults who refuse to work, or illegal immigrants.' Underneath the clash is a wonky debate about what, exactly, constitutes a Medicaid 'cut.' Republicans insist they aren't directly cutting benefits for low-income and disabled people, so their bill shouldn't be defined as a cut. Democrats and outside critics say it would strip away coverage for millions of people, including those who need the program the most, who would fall through the cracks if they can't meet the new bureaucratic requirements to keep proving their eligibility. The bulk of the cost savings would come from strict new rules to maintain eligibility for Medicaid, which would require adult recipients to prove they're working or engaging in 'community service' for at least 80 hours per month, with limited exceptions that include pregnant women. That rule would kick in at the end of 2026. Other new rules would involve verifying addresses, proving lawful immigration status and screening eligibility more frequently, once every six months, instead of once a year. The bill would impose about $700 billion in cuts to Medicaid relative to current law, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and rescind health coverage for about 8.6 million people. (The estimate was based on the work requirement's beginning in 2029, before it was moved up in the revised bill, meaning the uninsured number could be larger.) Still, Republicans are seeking to steer the debate toward the work requirements, which surveys say voters generally support for able-bodied adults, and selling the bill as an attempt to return Medicaid to those who need it the most. Asked to respond to the GOP argument on the bill's work requirements, DCCC spokesperson Viet Shelton said in an email: 'House Republicans got caught lying about their vote to rip health care away from millions of people and are now scrambling to change the subject. Their tax scam bill was specifically designed to be the largest cut to Medicaid in history and Republicans are now stuck in a doomloop debating how many and how quickly people will get kicked off their health insurance — not if.' The politics of the escalating fight could prompt Senate Republicans to make changes to the bill. Some have already expressed discomfort with the changes proposed for Medicaid, though they broadly favor work requirements and don't count them as 'cuts.' President Donald Trump has similarly said he doesn't want to cut Medicaid, yet he championed the House legislation. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee released a digital ad last week describing the GOP Medicaid policies as 'devastating.' A recent national survey by KFF, a nonpartisan health research group, highlights the nuances of the issue. Overall, the poll found that 62% of U.S. adults support new legislation 'requiring nearly all adults to work or be looking for work in order to get health insurance through Medicaid' — including 6 in 10 independents. But the KFF poll found the support to be soft. It plummets to 32% when respondents hear the argument that most Medicaid recipients are already working or are unable to work. When respondents hear the argument that such new rules would raise administrative costs without significantly affecting the share of Medicaid recipients who are working, support drops to 40%. There are other headwinds for Republicans. Overall, the KFF poll found that Medicaid funding cuts are unpopular: 82% of respondents said they wanted Medicaid spending to increase or stay about the same, while just 17% said they want it to decrease. Even among Republican respondents, just 33% said Medicaid spending should be reduced. The survey found that 3 in 4 U.S. adults said the legislation was about reducing government spending, while just one-fourth of them said it was about improving how Medicaid works. Still, the GOP focus has tripped up at least one Democratic candidate. Manny Rutinel, who is eying the seat of freshman Rep. Gabe Evans, R-Colo., declined three times in an interview on NBC affiliate KUSA of Denver to say whether he favors work requirements for able-bodied adults. 'It was painful to watch,' said a national Democratic strategist, who spoke candidly on condition of anonymity. The strategist said the onus is on Democrats to elevate the voices of regular people in their districts who would be harmed by the new rules and to make the case that 'people who need Medicaid are going to lose it because of what Republicans are doing.' As top Democrats echo their successful message from the 2018 election cycle, whereas Republicans tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act and enacted the Trump tax cuts, some in the party warn that the dynamics are different this time. The Republican 'message today is about requiring able-bodied Americans to work, preventing fraud and ensuring noncitizens are not covered,' said Ashley Schapitl, a former Democratic Senate communications aide. 'While Medicaid cuts poll horribly, these individual policies poll well. Democrats can still win the argument, but members need a sharp message and discipline around the issues of work requirements and immigration, not to feel complacent around rerunning the exact 2017 playbook.' House Majority Forward, a political group focused on electing Democrats, launched a six-figure ad campaign Wednesday in 26 Republican-held districts, accusing those lawmakers of voting to raise prices for ordinary people through Medicaid cuts. An ad running in Pennsylvania's 8th District says freshman GOP Rep. Rob Bresnahan 'just cast the deciding vote to raise the cost of your groceries and cut your health care including Medicaid — to pay for tax cuts for the ultra-rich.' A similar script is used against other incumbents, all of whom were pivotal in the 215-214 vote to pass the legislation last week and send it to the Senate. Republicans, notably, are focusing a new ad campaign of their own on touting the bill's tax cuts, not its spending cuts. The NRCC announced new ads Friday targeting 25 Democratic incumbents in competitive districts, saying they voted 'for the largest U.S. tax hike in generations' by opposing the bill that extends the expiring 2017 Trump tax cuts. The ad obliquely refers to citizenship verification for benefits, saying that under the status quo, 'illegals get freebies, you get the bill.' The ad doesn't mention Medicaid. This article was originally published on
CNBC
13 minutes ago
- CNBC
Best Buy cuts full-year sales and profit guidance as tariffs raise cost of electronics
Best Buy on Thursday missed quarterly revenue expectations and cut its full-year sales and profit guidance as higher tariffs increase the costs of many consumer electronics that it sells. For its fiscal 2026, the retailer said it now expects $41.1 billion to $41.9 billion of revenue, down from its previous range of $41.4 billion to $42.2 billion. It said it expects adjusted earnings per share to range from $6.15 to $6.30, which compares to prior guidance of $6.20 to $6.60. In a news release, CFO Matt Bilunas said the company's outlook anticipates that tariffs will stay at the current levels and there will be "no material change in consumer behavior from the trends we have seen in recent quarters." "As you can imagine, and based on our history, we will continue to scenario-plan and adjust with agility as the situation evolves," he said. Here's how the consumer electronics company did compared with what Wall Street was expecting for the company's fiscal first quarter, based on a survey of analysts by LSEG: Best Buy's net income in the three-month period that ended May 3 declined about 18% to $202 million, or 95 cents per share, from $246 million, or $1.13 per share, in the year-ago period. First-quarter revenue dropped from $8.85 billion in the year-ago period. Best Buy is a closely watched name when it comes to the impact of tariffs since it sells iPhones, TVs, laptops, kitchen appliances and many other consumer electronics that tend to be made in China or other parts of Asia. CEO Corie Barry said in March that China and Mexico are the company's top two sources of merchandise, with about 55% and 20% of its products coming from those countries, respectively. The U.S. currently has a 30% tariff on imports from China, while goods compliant with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement are exempt from the Trump administration's 25% duty on Mexico. It is unclear now how those rates will change after a federal trade court struck down many of Trump's tariffs on Wednesday. As of Wednesday's close, shares of Best Buy are down nearly 17% so far this year. That trails behind the roughly flat performance of the S&P 500 year to date. Shares of Best Buy closed at $71.52 on Wednesday, bringing the company's market value to $15.14 billion.
